How have courts interpreted section 1950.5(f) of the California Statutory Guidelines for the purpose of recovering security deposits from a recalcitrant landlord?

In analyzing statutory language, this court looks to "the object to be achieved and the evil to be prevented by the legislation." (Harris v. Capital [9 Cal.4th 756] Growth Investors XIV (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1142, 1159, 278 Cal.Rptr. 614, 805 P.2d 873.) As the majority acknowledges, section 1950.5(f) was designed to address the evil of landlords who fail to promptly return security due the tenant at the end of the tenancy. (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 653-654, of 38 Cal.Rptr.2d, at pp. 973-974 of 889 P.2d.) Recognizing the obstacles facing a former tenant seeking to recover a security deposit from a recalcitrant landlord

Page 661